Posted on 08/28/2006 6:31:13 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
http://www.icr.org/article/268/
ICR is the Institute For Creationion Research, a rabidly anti-evolution organization. So it's no surprise something like this is found there.
For those interested in the truth see the following links that address and refute these charges. Out of consideration for readers, I won't post the text found there. Those interested can use the links.
CA005. Evolution is racist.
CA005.1. Darwin himself was racist.
CA005.2. Darwin's work refers to "preservation of favoured races".
CA006. Evolution encourages eugenics.
CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism.
In other words, you refuse to give any evidence to support your assertions, but expect me to buy in on them anyway.
We've since established that the subtitle does not specifically exclude human races, either, so you're splitting hairs.
Nonsense. Human beings are not the subject of the book, as anyone who has actually read it can tell you.
Asking someone to prove a negative is another frequent strategy employed by creationists. This is a perfect example of it.
It is incument upon the person making a positive claim - that Darwin was talking about people - to substantiate it. You are trying to change the subject, which does not help the credibility of your argument.
"For the final time, it refers to plants and animals. had you read the book, you would know that."
Had Darwin left it at that, you would have a point. He didn't; you don't.
In other words, you refuse to give any evidence to support your assertions, but expect me to buy in on them anyway.
Yep, that's Creationism in a nutshell.
Nothing more than a modern-day PC, in which facts are subordinate to ideology.
In fact, that you have to resort to semantic arguments reveals EternalVigilance's claim to be fraudulent.
1st ed., 1871 / 2nd ed., 1874
Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9; first page numbers to the 1st ed., second to the 2nd ed.)
![]() |
@
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; ... (134/139)
Great lawgivers, the founders of beneficent religions, great philosophers and discoverers in science, aid the progress of mankind in a far higher degree by their works than by leaving a numerous progeny. In the case of corporeal structures, it is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species. So it will be with the intellectual faculties, since the somewhat abler men in each grade of society succeed rather better than the less able, and consequently increase in number, if not otherwise prevented. When in any nation the standard of intellect and the number of intellectual men have increased, we may expect from the law of deviation from an average, that prodigies of genius will, as shown by Mr Galton, appear somewhat more frequently than before. (136-7/141-2)
A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr Greg and Mr Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degreded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves, and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts---and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sizth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal "struggle for existence", it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed---and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.' (138/143)
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. Corporeal structure appears to have little influence, except so far as vigour of body leads to vigour of mind. (140/145-6)
Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations. (142/147)
With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on Natural Selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of Natural Selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through Natural Selection as one of the most important elements on the social instincts. (143/148)
Except Darwin didn't 'enthuse upon' eugenics in Descent, or anywhere else for that matter.
Care to try again?
--R.
"Had Darwin left it at that, you would have a point. He didn't"
Examples, please.
Oh, come on. Mississippi's declaration was put out about 14 months after the publication in England of The Origin of Species. You can't seriously suggest that the ideas therein crossed the Atlantic and became so accepted and enmeshed in Mississippi consciousness that they based this passage in the declaration on it.
Darwin not being around to express his horror at the misuse of his name.
--R.
Above and beyond the fact that Darwin chose to publish Galton's eugenic theory in "Descent Of Man?" Well, here's one:
"Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.
What a dishonest comment. I am comfortable in acknowledging the religious aspects of their argument. You, however, simply dismiss their written words as being of no consequence.
Nevertheless, I can point to the words of Mr. Lincoln in his first debate with Stephen Douglas:
. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]
The point here being, although Lincoln makes no bones about his position that "the negro" is fully entitled to all of the natural rights he enjoyed, he balanced it against a claim of racial superiority based on physical traits -- an essentially evolutionary argument.
It is fascinating that Lincoln used as a premise for his claim of racial superiority a theory that was not to be published until a year later. It is curious that Lincoln did not use his precognative abilities to avoid his assasination.
Dude, check the date of the debate: August 21, 1858. Darwin did not publish until 1859.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.